Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 855 (MP)

Jairam Kushwaha v. Amir Khan

2018-10-04

SHEEL NAGU

body2018
ORDER 1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the interlocutory order dated 4.10.2017 of the Court below by which an application under Order 8 rule 1-A(3) CPC dated 21.6.2017 preferred by defendant No. 1 seeking to bring on record the valuation certificate issued by Naib Tahsildaar, Kurwai Dated 28.2.2017 certifying the market value of the suit property, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. It is submission of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 that when the suit was at the atage of adducing of evidence by defendant, two applications, both under Order 8 rule 1-A(3) CPC were moved by the defendant No. 1. 3.1 By the first application dated 8.2.2017 prayer for bringing on record the true copy of Khasra of 2008-09 was allowed considering the said document to be cogent and relevant to the issue involved in the suit. 3.2 However, the second application dated 21.6.2017 seeking to bring on record the certificate disclosing the Collectors guidelines regarding market value of the suit property in the year 2010-11 suffered dismissal on the ground that the application had been filed at advance stage of the trial when plaintiffs evidence was over, without demonstrating that the said certificate could not be produced earlier despite exercise of due deligence. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that once the application under Order 8 rule 1-A(3) dated 8.2.2017 regarding true copy of the Khasra of 2008-09 was allowed, there was no justifiable reason for the learned trial judge to dismiss the other application of similar nature. When the dissuading factors of advance stage of suit and absence of exercise of due deligence was available in respect of application dated 8.2.2017 which was allowed then the trial Court should have also allowed the application dated 21.6.2017. 5. In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while dismissing the application dated 21.6.2017 under Order 8 rule 1-A(3) CPC preferred by the defendant No. 1/petitioner herein. 6. 5. In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it while dismissing the application dated 21.6.2017 under Order 8 rule 1-A(3) CPC preferred by the defendant No. 1/petitioner herein. 6. Consequently, the present petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 4.10.2017 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Kurwai, District Vidisha in COS No. 57-A/2012 so far as it rejects the application dated 21.6.2017 under Order 8 rule 1-A(3) stands set aside and the said application stands allowed. The certificate of the Naib Tahsildaar is directed to be taken up on record the trial be proceeded. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands allowed.